Secret History
Overturning Old Theories
How can the existence of this underwater city at this great depth be reconciled with the well-established consensus that the sea level never dropped so low? In Hancock's own words: "What one would not expect to find in water anywhere near as deep as 700 meters would be a sunken city - unless it had been submerged by some colossal tectonic event rather than by rising sea levels."
However, the hypothesis that the city was originally built at a higher altitude and subsequently sunk to its present depth through tectonic activity has not stood up to the scrutiny of the experts. Grenville Draper of Florida International University considers it highly unlikely that such an event could have occurred: "Nothing of this magnitude has been reported, even from the Mediterranean..."
Supposing Draper's remarks rejecting the likelihood of the city having submerged are reliable, we are compelled to accept that the city was built at more or less the same depth that the city is located now. In other words, we are faced with the patently absurd conclusion that the structures were built underwater! Though proponents of the aquatic ape theory may beg to differ, it is clear that we have reached an impasse. Could there be an alternative theory that satisfactorily accounts for these structures at such depths?
Read the rest here
Reader Comments
Just as the land can rise when relieved of the weight of kilometer thick ice packs (I think this is referred to as post-glacial rebound) is it not possible that a new sea bed can be compressed down further by the sudden extraordinary weight of sea water above it? Thus even if the average rise in sea level is say 120 meters it could appear to be much more if the sea bed is forced further down by said extra weight. The earth beneath or feet is perhaps best thought of as plastic rather than immovably solid. Just a thought. See The Earth's Shifting Axis by Mac B. Strain.
Science says that the Isthmus of Panama was actually rafted into place and not originally part of SA, then one might conjecture that the entire Northern Hemisphere of Earth was delayed in its rotation for a small period of time in which the S Hemisphere continued to rotate bringing the Isthmus into place, stressing the continental sea floor and heating the rock layers underneath. I suggest these layers were oil and gas rich, and the heat applied caused a gas blowout which was responsible for the death of large animal life in NA. This original massive blow out may have shoved Cuba north and split the Yucatan. It was far more devastating than any asteroid. Aromatic hydrocarbons released would have been in the billions of tons. The release would have hollowed out the gases and oil chambers and caused the sinking of hundreds of feet of previous above sea level land. Subsequent releases would have continued to cause subsidence even as the seas rose. Science tells us that the Amazon originally flowed inland and this would easily explain why it now flows seaward.
hits the nail on the head. Off the coast of Chile, there's a sunken city that is now a mile below the surface. On the other hand, Lake Titicaca was once a Pacific bay and Tiahuanacu was a seaport. They are now elevated over two miles above the ocean.
Why can't there be any real images of what someone found down there?
Only reconstructed images and artist-rendered images and representational images?
The site is a little shy of 1/2 mile down.
If the structures had fallen that far, even over time, I'd think there would be a lot less left of the buildings than what is shown here.
It is interesting; although, I'll wait for more convincing "proof" of anything at all.
In 1920, the British-horn Churchward came out with his first in a series of five hooks, The Lost Continent of Mu, prefaced by an admonition to "all scientists" to please copy for future reference. important points of pre-history and anthropology he had compiled through more than 50 years of research and exploration throughout Asia and the South Sea:
"There was once a flourishing continent in the middle of the Pacific Ocean called Mu ... The greatest tragedy of mankind occurred when Mu sank, carrying down with her 63.000,000 people and a civilization approximately 200,000 years old.
[Link]
..... Keynote speaker at the 2008 event, maverick archaeologist and megalith hunter David Hatcher Childress took us on a whirlwind journey in search of ancient sites in South America and the Pacific. Discussing everything from Tiahuanaco in Bolivia to Easter Island to the basalt crystal city of Nan Madol, the real-life Indiana Jones took us to remote areas of the Andes and hard-to-reach Pacific Islands in search of megaliths and lost cities.....
[Link]
we should remember that the gulf of Mexico is suspected to be the site of a huge meteor impact too. A LOOONG time ago. How can lank sink? Perhaps by removing the land next to it?








"Caribbean Sea has a similar geological history as the Mediterranean Sea? That is, could the Caribbean Sea have been a dry basin, and could it have been so during the existence of anatomically modern man?"
This line suggests that Mediterranean was dry during existence of modern man. But as far as I know, the Mediterranean Sea was dry over 5 millions years ago, when there wasn't any anatomically modern man. It was more ape-man than human, even before Australopithecus. I doubt Pliny had access to such an old oral tradition.